Motion to Dismiss, Transcripts pages 6-10
Continued from Motion to Dismiss- Transcripts pages 1-5
...recognized by the State or the federal government as an -- as an organization. And, in fact, as the prosecution concedes in paragraph six, in order to fall into the classification of a similar functionary, they have to be a recognized religious body, denomination, or organization. There's no federal tax exempt status with respect to these individuals. There is no -- there's not even a website that specifically identifies the name of these people and what "denomination" or religious body they adhere to.
They are believers in their religion. They believe in the Bible. They believe in the tenants and teachings of Jesus Christ. And they follow that. That fact that they call themselves workers or in some cases ministers is of no merit whatsoever with respect to the prosecutor's case. The fact that an individual calls themselves something does no in any way implicate his legal status in a court of law. And that is really the crux of this issue.
The prosecution believes that because these people call themselves ministers that they somehow fall into the categories under the statutes. It's simply not true. They call themselves ministers because the Bible tells them to call themselves ministers. Specifically Section 2 Corinthians 6-4 indicates in the King James Bible in all things present ourselves as ministers of God in much patience and afflictions and necessities and in distress. In Romans 15-16 King James Bible it indicates that you should be ministers of Jesus Christ to the Gentile ministering the gospel of God and offering up of the Gentiles that might be acceptable.
They follow the tenants of the Bible. We are going to get into a very slippery slope when we start prosecuting people based on their faith. That is a very difficult tenant. It's a very very difficult thing to prove. And it creates constitutional implications that are well beyond anything that we wanna try and tackle in this particular case.
It should be noted that this statute is what it is -- and I am in no way diminishing the value of the statute or why it's in place because I do believe that the statute has purpose -- this is not a statute where you are criminalizing the particular acts of an individual. Mr Frandle had nothing at all to do with this alleged abuse. He had nothing at all to do with it happening; with it -- anything at all to do with the abuse. He is not the "bad actor" in this case. He is merely someone who got information and now because of the way he holds himself out in his religion, he's being prosecuted because of that. That's a very dangerous proposition for us to undertake. Where you've got people who are strong believers in a faith and suddenly you're going to open them up to potential prosecution where they have no basis whatsoever that they are mandatory reporters.
He is not ordained. He is not -- he has no degree in theology. He has no recognition by the State of Michigan to perform any task whatsoever that an ordained minister, priest, rabbi would. He doesn't even have a college degree. He has a high school diploma. What he has is a strong belief in God. He has a belief that we should follow in Jesus' footsteps and he has done what many of these other people has done. He has eliminated his worldly possessions and he goes from house to house talking about God. That does not qualify someone under the statute as a mandatory reporter.
Ah, mandatory reporters under the statute are designated that because they have intimate knowledge of child sexual abuse. They have the ability and are trained to see child sexual abuse and are able to see when there's a problem and therefore report. They are -- they are in that situation not because they call themselves leaders in Jesus but because they've got the training and education and their recognized legal status that requires them to do that.
The People's case is weak. It's weak as evidenced by their response. They have nothing -- nothing to support the allegation that he is a similar functionary, other than saying it's so in their attachments to these documents. The most -- if it is -- if you wanna call it that, the most damning thing that they may have is a letter from Mr Frandle himself, in which, by the way, he's cooperating with the state police to try to work out this issue. He writes under his name minister.
But again, that's not a legal status. It's not even a religious status because no one of any religious authority has called him a minister. He can't perform any of the functions that a minister can perform in the State of Michigan It's simply --
THE COURT: What are those types of functions?
Mr Lessing: Well a minister if they're acknowledged by the state can perform marriages. They can theoretically perform baptism. I guess it depends on your religion, they can perform baptisms. Those things don't happen. They wanna say that because he was someone who spoke at funerals that somehow he's providing a function that is the equivalent of a minister.
First off, no evidence whatsoever has been provided about what, if any, activities were performed by him at these alleged funeral interactions. In itself, the attachment of a Google search is clearly hearsay. They would never come in at trial in this case. That's it. That's the best they have to establish that he is a "similar functionary".
The real trouble with the allegation or the charge is that it's secondary. Not only do they have to prove as a matter of law that Mr Frandle is a similar functionary in these -- in this non-existant religious doctrine but in order to qualify under the statute under the case law that we've provided the bad actor also has to be proven to be a religious functionary in this thing. There's no evidence about his background; what he does; why he qualifies under the statute --- nothing. Nothing.
THE COURT: On what do you base the statement that the bad actor has to be found to be a member of the organization?
Mr Lessing: It's in our -- it's in our citing of our statutes. There's a case called PEOPLE v Beardsley. It's attached I believe, your Honor. And it indicates that the --
THE COURT: I'm familiar with that. But I'ld like you to to tell me what part of the statute you think it relates to.
Mr Lessing: I'm sorry, your Honor. I missed that.
THE COURT: Can you connect Beardsley and a particular statute?
To continue, go to Motion to Dismiss - Transcripts pages 11-15
Jerome Frandle - Home|
Letter to Friends
Letter to MI Workers
Is Jerome F a minister?
Warrant for Arrest
Motion to Dismiss
Motion - Transcripts p1-5
Motion - Transcripts p6-10
Motion - Transcripts p11-15
Motion - Transcripts p16-20
Motion - Transcripts p21-25
Motion - Transcripts p26-30
Motion - Transcripts p31-35
Motion - Transcripts p36-40
Motion - Transcripts p41-45
Motion - Transcripts p46-50
Motion - Transcripts p51-55
Motion - Transcripts p56-61
Second Warrant for Arrest
Transcripts 2nd Warrant
Demands Trial by Jury
Response to Objections
Notice of Sentencing
Sentencing Jerome Frandle
Sentencing Transcripts 3
Sentencing Transcripts 4
|To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. - Jesus Christ speaking to Saul, see Act 26:18, see Salvation through Jesus Christ.|